Author Topic: Van Attack Toronto  (Read 362 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Van Attack Toronto
« Reply #30 on: April 24, 2018, 03:46:29 PM »

Funny, I don't need one and feel safe. And as I said elsewhere, only 25% of the US population have 100% of the civilian held firearms. Another fun fact: If you own a gun, you're over four times more likely to be shot with it than if you were unarmed in the first place. But back to the reason for the 2nd amdt. It wasn't written for what you suggest in your first sentence. The laughs would be hollow watching the 25% form themselves into a well armed militia, they'd not only be a danger to themselves but everyone else too.   :-

Hi there Mr. Pud!

‘mericans well-armed militia would be better protected from threats of death if they traded their AR 15s for an automatic cardiac defibrillator.



http://savannaharsenal.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/10426710_297829317061296_5299636756663508946_n.jpg

Re: Van Attack Toronto
« Reply #31 on: April 24, 2018, 03:47:49 PM »
Hi there Mr. Pud!

‘mericans well-armed militia would be better protected from threats of death if they traded their AR 15s for an automatic cardiac defibrillator.



http://savannaharsenal.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/10426710_297829317061296_5299636756663508946_n.jpg

Canadians. ::)

Re: Van Attack Toronto
« Reply #32 on: April 24, 2018, 04:09:56 PM »
Canadians. ::)

Well, they did produce a fine version of the Hi-Power during WW2.

Re: Van Attack Toronto
« Reply #33 on: April 24, 2018, 04:22:13 PM »
Who won the Vietnam war?

Mainly conscripts..Average age 19. And they lost over 54000, there's nearly 8000 still unaccounted for. The youngest of them now are in their late 60's. The current armed services have much younger and better armed soldiers, sailors and airmen and women. So even if all those vets had a firearm and still knew how to aim they'd be on the losing side. But it's moot anyway, because they wouldn't be a well organised militia to begin with. I know several Vietnam (and a Korean) vets (All services), and I doubt any have the will to shoot anything again.

Re: Van Attack Toronto
« Reply #34 on: April 24, 2018, 04:25:39 PM »
Mainly conscripts..Average age 19. And they lost over 54000, there's nearly 8000 still unaccounted for. The youngest of them now are in their late 60's. The current armed services have much younger and better armed soldiers, sailors and airmen and women. So even if all those vets had a firearm and still knew how to aim they'd be on the losing side. But it's moot anyway, because they wouldn't be a well organised militia to begin with. I know several Vietnam (and a Korean) vets (All services), and I doubt any have the will to shoot anything again.

Typical liberal strategy to talk around the question but not answer it because it would destroy your argument. Good one! :D

Re: Van Attack Toronto
« Reply #35 on: April 24, 2018, 06:49:46 PM »

Funny, I don't need one and feel safe. And as I said elsewhere, only 25% of the US population have 100% of the civilian held firearms. Another fun fact: If you own a gun, you're over four times more likely to be shot with it than if you were unarmed in the first place. But back to the reason for the 2nd amdt. It wasn't written for what you suggest in your first sentence. The laughs would be hollow watching the 25% form themselves into a well armed militia, they'd not only be a danger to themselves but everyone else too.   :-\

Depends where you live.  As I've said before, the town I live in requires homeowners to own guns and crime is not a problem here. I doubt you would feel so safe if you went into the seedier parts of many major urban centers.  It is true that the 2nd amendment doesn't specifically state for home or personal defense but it is implied with the statement saying that "the right of people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT be infringed."

Re: Van Attack Toronto
« Reply #36 on: April 24, 2018, 09:02:03 PM »
Mainly conscripts..Average age 19. And they lost over 54000, there's nearly 8000 still unaccounted for. The youngest of them now are in their late 60's. The current armed services have much younger and better armed soldiers, sailors and airmen and women. So even if all those vets had a firearm and still knew how to aim they'd be on the losing side. But it's moot anyway, because they wouldn't be a well organised militia to begin with. I know several Vietnam (and a Korean) vets (All services), and I doubt any have the will to shoot anything again.

Why wouldn’t they?  They have much less to lose....


And good luck trying to remain a legitimate government by using an F-15E and cluster munitions on grandpa.....


Pud, you’ve been arguing about guns for years here.  You’ve attempted every argument against, and heard every argument for ownership.  Do you think you are ever going to get the exlpajnatokn or argument that you seek?  Is there possibly any yet unargued points about it that though think remain uncovered?   We’re not giving up our guns.  Get over it.

Re: Van Attack Toronto
« Reply #37 on: April 24, 2018, 09:03:20 PM »
Hey Pud.  Do you think the state could round up all the guns?

Maybe just the assault weapons?

Re: Van Attack Toronto
« Reply #38 on: April 25, 2018, 12:32:09 AM »
Have we banned vans yet?

Re: Van Attack Toronto
« Reply #39 on: April 25, 2018, 01:49:59 AM »
So, this guy was supposedly a 4chaner. Watch out, people! I have a feeling there may be a Bellgab killer in the near future. :o


Re: Van Attack Toronto
« Reply #40 on: April 25, 2018, 02:03:06 AM »
...Another fun fact: If you own a gun, you're over four times more likely to be shot with it than if you were unarmed in the first place...
I'm trying to decipher this fun fact.  It would seem that if you are "unarmed in the first place" that there is a 0% chance of your getting shot with your own non-existent gun.  If you are armed, there is a chance.  Making you 1,000,000 times more likely to get shot with your own gun than being shot with your imaginary guy if you were unarmed...  :-\

I should also point out that if you are an intruder in my home, there is a much better chance that you will end up shot and dead vs. targeting a home without a firearm. I believe the statistic is somewhere around 20,000% more likely to be shot breaking into my house than being shot by an unarmed home owner...

Re: Van Attack Toronto
« Reply #41 on: April 25, 2018, 07:53:58 AM »
A fucking incel. For fucks sake.

Yeah, running down strangers will totally teach those sluts who won't sleep with you a lesson.

Re: Van Attack Toronto
« Reply #42 on: April 25, 2018, 12:55:43 PM »
A fucking incel. For fucks sake.

Yeah, running down strangers will totally teach those sluts who won't sleep with you a lesson.

Obvious psyop to take down 4chan is obvious.